Posted
by
kdawsonon Tuesday July 15, 2008 @02:24PM
from the grind-exceeding-fine dept.

Reader The other A.N. Other, among others, alerts us to the news that Apple has filed suit against Psystar, the unauthorized clonemaker. (We've been discussingPsystarfrom the start.) The suit alleges violation of Apple's shrink wrap license and trademarks, and also copyright infringement. News of the lawsuit, filed on July 3, first surfaced on a legal blog. There's speculation that the case has been sealed.

I was thinking the same thing, but Apple might have waited until they were sure they could win the suit.

Or had to.

Had this clone company flopped Apple could have walked away without ever lifting a finger. Now Steve Jobs has to pull the same kind of antics that Microsoft was endlessly bashed for.

After all, Apple likes to play it off like the cool slacker who has everything just work out in the end. It's going to look bad if they need to kick some ass to keep their coveted spot in the home computing world. It's going to make for a great Mac Vs. PC commercial, I'm sure.

Apple is the same company who has repeatedly sent threatening legal letters to teenage bloggers and such. They also clearly violated their deal with Apple records, and then went on the legal offensive like they were victims.

Apple certainly isn't afraid to use their lawyers. My guess is that they wanted Pystar to make some profits to the lawsuit would make financial sense.

Apple is the same company who has repeatedly sent threatening legal letters to teenage bloggers and such. They also clearly violated their deal with Apple records, and then went on the legal offensive like they were victims.

Apple certainly isn't afraid to use their lawyers. My guess is that they wanted Pystar to make some profits to the lawsuit would make financial sense.

I don't think they're really after any money that Pystar may have made from their sales. Sure they'll sue Pystar for tens of millions of dollars, but I don't think it's really about that. To Apple their brand image is worth more to them than any small amount of money that Pystar has possibly made over the last few months.

My best guess is that the only reason that they took this long is that they were curious to see exactly how many units Pystar could ship over a certain period of time. The sales data would

Apple has done worse in their day. They're more ruthless than most corporations when it comes to things like this.

Somehow, it seems to go unnoticed..

I guess people forgot how they squashed the Mac clone market a decade ago by deciding to no longer license the ROM needed to run MacOS and thus putting many OEM companies out of business in one fell swoop.

What's funny is how no one mentions that Apple hasn't made a single legal move against the OSX86 project.

They haven't made a peep, not a disapproving statement nor threats of legal action. The ONLY reason Apple cares is because Psystar is riding their name and software in an attempt to make a cheap buck, and would likely push the support issues off to Apple who will take a black mark for refusing to support hardware they had no hand in.

This is nothing more than another case of a company sueing to protect the business model they feel entitled to continued/endless profit from.

Psystar could still sell computers if apple didn't exist. They could sell them blank, with windows, with linux (oh wait, what is MacOS again?!). How is Apple killing the clone market any different than printer mfgs putting a extremely simple 'encryption' chip in their toners to use the DMCA against after-market toner mfgs?

I guess people forgot how they squashed the Mac clone market a decade ago by deciding to no longer license the ROM needed to run MacOS and thus putting many OEM companies out of business in one fell swoop.

I guess you forgot that the clone makers agreed not to go after Apple's market and invariably did. Apple's intention to allow clones was to expand where it couldn't, yet instead of expanding they went after what little of the market Apple had. After having being burnt last time, I am not sure that Apple wants to go through that again.

$4M might be a tax dodge. I might even be willing to consider $40M to be a tax dodge. But when you start talking tens of *billions*, I somehow doubt that taxes are even on Bill's mental radar. Oh, I'm sure he's aware of his tax liability in the abstract and has a team of accountants handling the details. But when you have enough money to literally change the world, your ambitions extend beyond trying to hide a few bucks from the government.

Let's face some real facts about Apple. Their spot in the home computing world comes largely from the cool facade that they've, literally, built for themselves. Apple has gone well out of it's way to force an image on the public. This image works for them because it appeals to people who think that computing is somehow not "fun" if it's not done on an Apple. Their commercials are some of the biggest misrepre

Because they remove any reference to negative comments, ignore upset customers, and generally sweep it all under the rug.
Don't get me wrong, I like a good Mac, but their willingness to admit to being wrong or to having build buggy code is really non-existent.

Not to mention that Apple sues web sites that show rumors and news on Apple products. Part of the reason why Apple sued them, was to stop all of the news and rumors on defective Apple technology like laptop batteries that caught on fire, flaws in OSX, cracks in Mac cases, and poor customer support, etc. Once Apple sues all critics into oblivion, there can be no more negative reviews on Apple products.

Wow... talk about putting words in my mouth. I really hate when people do that.

I never once said a word about Microsoft and most certainly did not say anything positive about them. I use Microsoft only because it is required at my job. I'd switch to a flavor of *nix at home, but I have family to consider (my wife is not comfortable with it, and I want to maintain our network and servers for both our benefit, not just my hacking wishes).

Also, I have read the Mac forums, and have kept up on the comments that suddenly vanish because a person actually reported a serious bug. I've seen frustrated users repeatedly post bug reports due to their post suddenly vanishing without comment, and I've seen Apple remove those posts and then present nothing but denials that there are any issues being covered up.

No company is perfect, and these are obviously fringe cases, but the facts remain.

They look so clean because they work so hard to look clean. They white wash the issues to make that 5-10% of disgruntled customers disappear from their public image.

Microsoft simply sues people into oblivion to ensure that no matter how crappy their software is, they still make money.

Linux has many of its own issues, such as driver problems, so many versions as to make one's head spin, and a small number of rude but vocal people on forums telling people to shut up and stop posting their n00b questions to the forum (not a great welcome to my friends who are trying it out for the first time, even though I understand the forum users' frustration).

So to recap:
- Don't put words in others' mouths.
- All OS's and all companies have problems, just different problems, and anyone who is a fanboi for anything just because they like it has no ability to think critically.

So Mac does it better than the rest... so what. They still whitewash their image to try and look as squeaky clean as they can while still putting out stuff that may not be over priced, but sure isn't competitively priced either. Meh. It's life. Get over it.

I use, support and even endorse Apple computers for certain people and applications. I'm not an Apple basher. But some realities regarding the success of Apple are that it is eerily similar to Starbuck's Coffee and H2 and H3 Hummer vehicles. People just want to be seen with them. They want to be associated with all of the images associated with what they think these products represent. For those who value brand recognition, these brands

Because people don't feel as bad when they feel they've wasted $10 than when they feel they've wasted $1000, so of course Apple consumers won't admit to their dissatisfaction as easily as, say, Dell customers. Yes, even to themselves.

yeah right, and to save the massive disappointment on my iBook that's worked amazingly for me for 3 years, I have since wasted money on 2 iPods, an iPhone, Airport Express, various peripherals and software.

Also, when I used Vista for the first time ever a few days ago (I was asked to help set up wireless on it) all the pop ups didn't really annoy me, they were like lots of little hugs from Microsoft letting me know they cared, I just faked my disgust at MS design to mask my massive heartache at Apple's famo

If it's all marketing then why does Apple have the highest consumer satisfaction rates in the entire industry?

If their products were crap, or even equivalent, consumers would not speak so highly of them, for so long after their purchases.

So you would think. But, a couple things play against that.

1. Customers *expect* that an Apple will be a different experience than, say, a Windows machine. As a result, they're expectations are already geared towards, "This is going to be a good experience." As a result, they are more likely to have a good experience.

2. Face it - Apple products are expensive. Another psychological response that people have is that once they invest into something, they are more likely to stick with that something (and argue for that something) no matter how bad it is. So, it may be that someone spends $2000 on a new Mac, they have high expectations, they take it home and don't really like using it. However, they can't admit that because that means they made a bad decision. Hence...Macs are always awesome.

I know it sounds stupid. I thought so too until I read through the studies and performed some of my own in my work.

Never underestimate the power of someone to convince themselves of something if they don't want to be wrong or stupid.

Let me poot it this way. On blogspot, a systems security company ran a series of articles called "Mad as Hell" where they took a large portion of their user base, switched them to Macs for 6 months, and did an exhaustive TCO analysis (on a side note, macs came out to be much cheaper to operate, almost by half, than cheaper windows boxes once security, man hours, and more came into play, he had a nice spreadsheet you could plug your own numbers into as well if your rates differed).

The point I'm making here is there were several key (read VOCAL) employees that tried to refuse to use a mac. After 6 months, those same employees BOUGHT the mac they were using from the company, and REFUSED to switch back to a PC.

I've been a mac user since 1984 (and apple user since 1980). Every mac I or my family has owned is still working today, except an iMac G4 that got fried by lightning) including a Lisa bought in 84 and an original imac 128K in 85. Sure, we've had HDDs and power suplies blow out, and they've been repaired, but since every component in a mac is basiccaly the same as a PC, except the motherboard of which I have NEVER had one fail (including the hundred or so macs in an advertising firm I ran IT for).

Saying that people are too proud to complain about their high dollar purchases? Let me tell you, people who buy expensive stuff are VERY vocal about it's issues. They expect it to work, work well, and never die. Try asking a tech at a mercedes dealership... I'd like to see some of your references showing how this psychological phenomenon was measured...

besides, most macs, feature to feayture, are CHEAPER than equivolent Dell systems. Sure, you can't get a Mac for $499, but lets be honest, you can't get a real PC for that either. (A PC that doesn't meet the minimum requirements to run the OS pre-installed on it does not countas a real PC)

I dare you, go to Dell's site, configure matching systems to an iMac, Powerbook Pro, and Mini. The Dell One is about $150 more expensive than an iMac, their gaming notebooks (keep in mind the pro has a very high performance graphics engine and is intended to play Wow and run virtual machines, it's not a toy) are $300-500 more expensive than the mac pro, even their SFF desktop is more than $100 more than a mini. You can get a basic notebook for about $100 less than a standard macbook, with part to part equivolent perfornamce, but the Dell is more than a ound heavier if you do, or more expensive if you go lighter. Nothing Dell has compares to the Air.

If it's all marketing then why does Apple have the highest consumer satisfaction rates in the entire industry?

Here's an interesting factoid from the 1990s for you. Of all the auto brands in the General Motors family, Pontiac had the highest standards of production quality, while Cadillac had the lowest. And yet Pontiac had the lowest satisfaction ratings, while Cadillac had the highest.

My point is that "highest satisfaction" may have nothing to do with actual production quality, but with consumer perception of the product. And I say this as someone who prefers Macs to other systems (the same way I prefer New Balance sneakers to other shoes: because it fits me better).

Apple has managed to conceptually sell the idea that owning apple products makes you better than someone who doesn't. And now they're literally selling it to you.

Most people this shallow have more money than sense (it overlaps with the SUV demographic) and thus will simply buy replacements when one breaks rather than filling out customer satisfaction surveys about the interaction with apple customer support that they didn't have.

But I believe in the company's ability to extract money from these people, which is why I own Apple stock.;)

That's at least part of it. Who is more likely to fill out a survey? The customer that's a rabid fanboi getting a chance to express his undying love for the company that he throws wads of cash at? Or the one who is pissed off because their ipod just broke? Yes, I kinda slanted the questions a bit, but you get the idea.

Don't misunderstand me, I'm not an anti-fanboy either. I'm simply rational, skeptical, and less susceptible to marketing than your average person.

I have a shuffle that I use at the gym almost daily. For a gym-music machine it's very hard to beat. Tiny, lightweight, clips on, stays out of the way, and plays music. Coupled with a pair of the cheapest, lightest, banded in-ear headphones I could find it's the perfect gym music player.

Oh, I did I forget to mention that the first shuffle broke within days? And nearly deafened me with its death scream? So as a customer, I'm pretty neutral myself. Sure, they overnighted me a replacement before I even shipped mine off, but I would have rather have one that worked the first time and didn't hurt my eardrums when it died.

So this particular customer is a little negative. Removing iPod download was reprehensible. And I've had two out of three ipods break. But they didn't give me a survey. And I probably wouldn't waste my time filling it out if they did.

I think the rating comes from the excellent support department they have, worldwide, which they can afford due to their high markup on items. Apple products are more expensive for a reason, not just because they can.

My company is evaluating moving over to mac book pros. We have put 25 of them into use and are tracking their rate of hardware failure against the 200 Dell Latitudes we have in play. Guess what- the mac books experience hardware failures 6x as often. Its not like there is one mac mac book pro either, MOST of them have had issues, including replacements.

Gee, funny how several different independent testing companies have completely the opposite results you do. Now who should I trust to accurately and impartially test equipment, Muadib or Consumer Reports... it's such a tough call.

Dell has come a long way with their laptops over the last year, from below average to one of the most reliable. They still are below average for desktops. And Apple, well they've been at the top for relaibility rates for years now. Buying Apple hardware can be problematic since their selection is small compared to all the PC vendors combined and for end users you'll end up paying for features you don't want (or don't think you want anyway). That said, they make some of the most reliable hardware you can buy.

Althought the previous post didn't put it in the most objective manner, I hardly think that the post should be modded "Flamebait." A bit direct, perhaps, and obviously writing from a very decided point of view, but I've seen much less objective and more objectionably phrased comments rated "Insightful" or "Informative." The bottom line is that whoever rated this "Flamebait" disagreed and wants the comment discredited. Too bad I don't have mod points right now.

They've created fake problems for the consumer public to laugh about in an attempt to sway them from the PC/MS market.

If the problems were fake, why would people laugh about those problems? For example, if they made a commercial about how Windows machines were awful because they didn't have enough programs/peripherals available, people wouldn't laugh along with the commercial. If anything, they'd laugh *at* the commercial because it would be nonsense, and the ad wouldn't work.

Their commercials are some of the biggest misrepresentations of technology this side of Comcast it's not even funny. They've created fake problems for the consumer public to laugh about in an attempt to sway them from the PC/MS market.

This image works for them because it appeals to people who think that computing is somehow not "fun" if it's not done on an Apple.

You need to get out of the basement more. In the real world, Apple has lots of fans because their stuff works better than the alternatives for a lot of people. For example, my wife has no love for computers in general, but a whole lot of love for her 6 year old iMac. When it dies, nothing but another Mac will even be considered.

She's seen my KDE desktop and thought it was pretty but too geeky. She hates Vista that came on a laptop we bought. Her Mac is just about perfect for her, though.

For once I'd like to see a mature rebuttal against the current successful state of Macintosh that doesn't have to revert to the term "fanboi". If you can do that, I'd give your arguments credit. Until then, your insistence on using "fanboi" shows that you have no real credibility behind your otherwise immature claims.

Perhaps fanboyism is a major part of their consumer market success. I've yet to see anything as nice as Final Cut Pro on Windows. Nothing from Avid, Pinnacle, or anyone else comes close. The color matching between a Mac with a good monitor and print output makes any Adobe or other graphics software a much better value proposition on a Mac than on a Windows PC. The stock sound system on a Mac is superior to what you get with most PCs. As a media creation workstation, I'd say a Mac is far superior to a Windows PC. It's no SGI, but it doesn't carry the even higher premium, either. The professional market might have a trickle-down effect to simple fanboys, but many home Mac customers also use one at the office.

I prefer Linux for my work, as I'm mostly kept busy as a software developer with choice of platform and Linux is very nice for that. I do most of my gaming on Windows, and my accountant uses Windows because our chosen software only works (well, anyway) there. I have two used Macs, one with Linux and one with OS X. The OS X one is around for when I need to do some intense graphics work, as that's the platform for that. Some of my simpler stuff gets done on Linux or Windows, but tougher graphics stuff is on a Mac or outsourced to someone. Most of the people to whom I outsource graphics work also use primarily Macs for that.

Unless you try to Dual-Boot with BeOS... for free.. then their OEM EULA prohibits them from putting non-windows OSes in the boot screen or even SHOWING the user an icon to set up dual booting. That's what Fujitsu and Toshiba found out when BeOS wanted to be put on systems for free... and why no major player will sell dual-boot systems with the Linux pre-installed.

"You're welcome to sell any computer you want that has Windows on it, as long as you hand over the Windows license with the computer."

Correction If you sell Windows, you're ONLY allowed to sell Windows or even advertise Windows on those machines. (see above) You can sell machines with other OSes, but Microsoft want's (wanted) license fees for EVERY computer you sold (until it was declared illegal). So Microsoft is much WORSE... After all, only Apple sells Macs, they are not compelling any other company to do their bidding.

Well getting damages in a copyright case does equire trying to mitigate damages..They may have spent the time trying to the company to comply or get a licensing agreement worked out.Apple's case will go much smoother if they can show they tried to settle the issue before moving to legal options.

Er. Apple is a) a very small player in a market locked up by Microsoft (for OSs), and b) just one of many players in the home computer hardware market. By tying their hardware so firmly to the OS, they aren't so much killing competition as denying themselves extra sales of the OS.

I'm all for holding Apple to account for their licensing policies, but hyperbole doesn't help.

The link points not to any decision, but to a dissent by Byron White objecting to the Supreme Court's decision not to hear on the case on appeal. The Court never explains why it chooses not hear a case, but Justices can publish a dissent from that decision if they feel it's warranted. There is no precedent established here, at least in the sense of a Supreme Court ruling.

Moreover, if you read White's dissent, he points out that tying agreements are not always per se illegal and can in some cases be pro-com

That is correct, but the Appeals Court's decision falls on Psystar's side. While this is by no means definitive in the case in question, it is a legal precedent at the federal level, and it relates directly to the matter at hand.

Well I am not a fanboy and don't own a Mac but.Their notebooks except the Air seem to be competitively priced.The Imac seems a little pricey.The Pro towers seem again to be competitive for what you get.And the Servers seem like a pretty good deal.What they lack are the super cheap entry level disposable junk that you see at BestCompuMaxCity.They do lack a moderate price expandable tower.

What they lack are the super cheap entry level disposable junk...They do lack a moderate price expandable tower

So, hardware-wise, they only sell high end stuff. The thing with the high end is that you start getting diminishing returns. I build moderate towers for half what the high end computers would cost and get 75% of the performance at least, although often it's closer to 80% or 90%. From what I've seen, macs tend to fall later on the curve than I (and most people I know) like to hit, after the performance-per-dollar starts declining.

Of course, that's just my opinion, many people prefer to buy there, and for them macs are just fine.

Go ahead and spec out a similar machine from Dell, HP, or Lenovo. When comparing apples to apples (heh), they might not necessarily be the best deal around, but are certainly competitive, and definitely not a ripoff.

It does not matter whether you can duplicate a Mac for less. What matters is, after you have settled on a spec you want, or found a Dell or HP you want, can you duplicate that for the same price from the Apple product line?

95% of the time you can't. This is what makes Apple a rip-off.

It would only matter that you could not duplicate a Mac cheaper, if the Mac spec were the starting point for shopping. It very rarely is.

What kills me is that you're stuck with the crappy 1280x800 screen on every Macbook until you get to the outrageously expensive Macbook Pros. Even my >2 year old $600 Inspiron 6000 has a 1680x1050 display on it. I can't go back, but I don't want to pay $2,800 for a laptop either.

People feeling ripped off is what makes Apple a rip-off. If you're happy with your Mac, and feel you got good value for it, you haven't been ripped off. If you're unhappy with your Windows/PC, and want a Mac to replace it, but can't find one with comparable specs, don't buy one and you won't be ripped off.

Last time I did that I was able to put together a machine comparable to a Mac Mini for about 50% of the price, and a Macbook for about 70% of the price. On average, the "Mac Tax" seems to be about 40% of the list price of a Mac.

I still bought the Mac mini and the Macbook Pro (thought that was tough, I could have gotten everything I actually wanted (hardware-wise) from a Macbook Pro for about the same price as the Macbook). When the choice is Windows vs UNIX-with-actual-applications, the Mac Tax is worth it. But it's still real.

You put together a MacMini for 50% of the price? There's only two companies out there I'm aware of that offer similar sized machines. Asus sell the eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeBox, but it's a lot lower specced, and AOpen's mini PC, which I admit is a better deal, but it's no where near 50% of the price. My guess is that you forgot that being 6" by 6" by 2" and silent is a very very valuable feature.

You put together a MacMini for 50% of the price? There's only two companies out there I'm aware of that offer similar sized machines.

I specced a functionally equivalent machine, and even gave Apple a break by not including the cost of the external hard drive case, external powered USB hub, and power strip that made the total size of the Mac mini solution pretty much the same as the low profile desktop, but I *did* count the firewire card in the cost of the PC!

I am not counting "styling" (including the size of the Mac mini, the smooth white case on the Macbook, etc). Just function. Styling too often has negative value (eg, the Mac mini doesn't even provide enough power from USB to charge an iPod Shuffle).

You would expect that such a problem would draw a bit of attention, and that you might find something about it if you say googled for "mac mini iPod shuffle charge" or "mac mini USB power". But, searching a good number of terms turns up absolutely nothing -- in fact, even one article claiming that the MacMini provides *too much* power for the USB spec, not too little. He's clearly just spreading FUD.

I specced a functionally equivalent machine, and even gave Apple a break by not including the cost of the external hard drive case, external powered USB hub, and power strip that made the total size of the Mac mini solution pretty much the same as the low profile desktop, but I *did* count the firewire card in the cost of the PC!

I know just how you mean. The other day I was looking for a new bicycle. I wanted a bike that would not fold and looked at a Dahon folding bike, then gave Dahon a break by not including the cost of hiring some guy to weld the folding joints in place and it was still more expensive than regular bikes!

I've done it on machines that later were serviced under my AppleCare Protection Plan. Even though the person in the call center noticed my specs didn't match what they were at time of purchase they didn't try to weasel out by claiming a warranty violation.

The last time I sent my Powerbook G4 in for service, the problem was actually related to the cheap 3rd party ram I was using. They simply took it out, put it in a static bag, shipped everything back, and told me to re-install the original ram that shipped with the unit. No attempt was made to bill me for work not covered under the ACPP.

Nah, they are a software company. The truth is that they can't be profitable selling Mac OSX at $150 a copy to compete with Windows, because they need a large developer team to keep pace with Microsoft and they have fewer unit sales.

So if Microsoft spends $1 billion on development, Apple probably needs to spend at least $500 million to keep up. Microsoft can distribute that cost among 20 million users at $50 each, charge $100 and make half profit. If Apple has 2 million users that comes out to $250 per user spent on development. (These aren't intended to be real numbers, just an approximation of the magnitude of the respective numbers).

Very few people would spend $500 on a boxed OSX so it's necessary to bundle with hardware that's intentionally kept unique, and lower-end models are limited in certain ways as a form of price discrimination. The uniqueness is part of the package, but it's also a way to obfuscate direct price comparisons.

Apple sells OSX UPGRADES at a reasonable price, but there's no way you'd catch them selling an "OEM" version anywhere close to $200 -- there'd be no ROI.

This is the only strategy a commercial OS vendor could resonably hope to use in a Microsoft-dominated market.

And finally, how successful would OS/X be if Apple sold it as software for any platform, Microsoft-style? It would be earth-shakingly successful, probably garnering 50% marketshare within one year. And probably making 10x more money than they do now.

They tried that before. It didn't work out too well. Also, you're wrong.

One of the strengths of OS X is that it runs on a limited, well-understood suite of hardware. Bugs are easier to fix, components are easier to tweak, and new features are more easily added. I do not, and never have, believed that Apple would be well served by opening up OS X. It's a tightly run ship (for the most part), and opening it up to all hardware would serve neither Apple nor end users.

I dunno if you've noticed or not, but Apple is the most arrogant company in computing. They will do the stupidest thing imaginable for a long, long time, before finally changing their ways and admitting that it was a bad idea. Look at how long it took them to drop the hockey puck mouse. Look at how long it took them to realize that they should make a mouse with more than one buttons. Look at how they still aren't making a real two-button mouse. Look at how long it took them to get with the program, and get on the same processor architecture as the rest of the world had been on for years.

Apple may one day sell OS X on other companies' hardware, but that point is years off, if it ever arrives, due to Apple's sheer overwhelming arrogance.

I dunno if you've noticed or not, but Apple is the most arrogant company in computing. They will do the stupidest thing imaginable for a long, long time, before finally changing their ways and admitting that it was a bad idea. Look at how long it took them to drop the hockey puck mouse.

A year or so? That was an ergonomic problem to be sure.

Look at how long it took them to realize that they should make a mouse with more than one buttons.

Apple is exactly what Microsoft would be if Bill Gate's father wasn't already a wealthy man. Do you think that Jobs or Gates are very much different?

One interesting note, however, Apple uses the courts as an offensive mechanism more often than Microsoft. Microsoft tends to bombard problems with cash projectiles until resistance is bought off. Apple sues you for even talking about them.

Few people have any illusions that Apple is "not evil" in some sense that makes them different from any other company.

But this case has nothing to do with being evil or being good.

Apple and Microsoft have a completely different set of business models. It's not just that they're smaller, the whole revenue model is radically different: Apple makes their money from hardware sales. This is probably the biggest reason that Apple's still in business: they're not fighting Microsoft on Microsoft's playing field.

Anyway, they have to sell hardware to do that. So they license the software in a way that drives hardware sales. So they kind of don't have an alternative: go up against Microsoft when death is on the line, or sue someone who's blatantly violating your license.

Without the clause in the EULA that you will only run the OS on a genuine MAC, there is nothing here. So I guess we get to see just how far a shrink wrap EULA will go in the court. I'm not entirely certain that this is a good case for it, but it's not one of the worst.

Unfortunately, the 9th Circuit just ruled for Blizzard in their interpretation of a EULA violation negating the validity of license of legally purchased software & CA is in the 9th Circuit.

There's a little more to it now.
It sounds more like they're suing because they took the Leopard update, opened it up, modified files in it, and re-released it for themselves.
I think they're considering that a copyright infringement.

False. In fact, the 1st, 2nd, and 10th circuits had 100% of their decisions heard by the supreme court reversed in 04-05. The 9th had 84%.

In terms of pure numbers, yes, this may be true. But the 9th circuit also hears comparatively more cases than the others, as well. In terms of percentages, this is an oft-repeated but rarely-documented fallacious statement. The only time in recent history when they were the most overturned was in the 96-97 session.

It's also somewhat of a silly statistic, given that the supreme court rarely hears cases that it doesn't expect to overturn - if the general consensus is agreement, why would they hear the appeal unless it's important enough to "reinforce" the original court's decision?

Apple: I'm not going to sell you this software unless you agree to only run it on Genuine Apple hardware.

Customer: okay, I agree.

I think you got that out of order.

Salesperson: Here you go!
Customer: Thanks! (opens shrink wrap, starts install, reads EULA)
Customer: I want to return this opened product because I do not agree to the terms of the EULA.
Salesperson: fsck you.

Wouldn't it be nice if they fought this? If they said, hey, we bought your software, we can install it on whatever we want. And then, in my imaginary world, a judge sees their point of view and rules that once you purchase a piece of software, it's yours to do with as you please.

So we can ignore Apple and Microsoft's licenses because we don't like them, but if anyone even thinks about subverting the GPL, fire up the pot of boiling oil? Awesome.

Personally I believe the choice has to be made by the individual, not the courts. Enough people start reading EULA's and asking uncomfortable questions at retail, and we may see better licenses, or even more use of free software. Of course that would require everyone be educated about software licensing, and have their brains rewired from a

Actually, they do. Look at what just happened to Dell. Their EULA stated that you had to agree to arbitration, but a judge ruled that it was invalid. Just because a company writes something down on a piece of paper and sticks that piece of paper into a product that you buy, doesn't make it necessarily enforceable.

1. Create a line of Mac clones.2. Sell them to an unwitting public.3. Have Apple file suit.4. Pay bonuses to all the execs.5. Declare bankruptcy.6. Shut down all operations.

Guess what... Everyone who bought a Psystar is left totally unsupported (which includes the all-important security hole fixes) and the execs made a bundle... Now, could Apple go after the execs personally for copyright infringement or (the soon-to-be-defunct) Psystar? Ironically, there was no consumer fraud here--businesses go under all the time and anyone who bought a Psystar would have had to know that Apple wouldn't support them...

When the North won the U.S. Civil War, they pointedly said that the federal government would not redeem confederate currency, nor pay any confederate debts. Apple's pretty much taking the same line, and the reason is pretty obvious: If Apple were to make nice, it would encourage purchases from the next huckster that tries to sell Apple clones.

Anyone who bought a Psystar should have known that Psystar wouldn't necessarily support (or be able to support) them either. Them's the risks when you buy a hacked product.

And those risks are minimized if the product never needs updating. But now that many items (PCs, cell phones, game consoles) need to phone home to get security fixes, buying a hacked item, be it a Psystar or a hacked iPhone, just doesn't make sense...

I really hope this goes to trial and a judge rules on it. Partly because I think the judge would rule that Apple can't do what they're trying to do with their EULA, but even if the judge sides with them, it's still a clarification of the law.

I don't like existing in the murky world of armchair people positing what is and isn't legal. Plus, if it goes Psystar's way, I doubt it would be too long before larger manufacturers got on board. Once something becomes legal, corporations want all over it (well, I guess that applies to profitable things).

I know the Slashdot hordes like to bitch and moan about EULAs -- not without cause, mind you -- but the EULA violation in this case might as well be a footnote.

If all Psystar had done was violate the EULA clause that said "hey, you won't do anything to make this run on non-Apple hardware", then this case would be about how enforceable that clause is.

Unfortunately, Psystar did much more egregious things than violate a silly EULA term. They, by their own public admission, modified a copyright-protected work, then redistributed these modifications without a license to do so. And they did it for commercial purposes, no less. Even under the traditional terms of copyright (as opposed to the mutilated corporate-serving terms we have now), that's just not cricket.

On top of that copyright infringement, they also noodle-headedly used at least one Apple trademark (the "Leopard" name and mark) to promote the sale of hardware and software.

I will be absolutely stunned if Apple doesn't prevail on the Copyright and Trademark parts of their case, though I do hope that the judge will find that a license to run software on a particular kind of hardware is not binding.

(Not a lawyer, this isn't advice -- I do know a thing or two about the law)

I think the problem will come down to what is Apple hardware. Is an Airport Extreme an Apple branded device, or is it a Broadcom 43xx card or Atheros 5424 card with an Apple sticker on it? Is the sound card a "High Definition Apple Sound Card" that's built into the "MacBook Logic Board" or is it just an HD Realtek card (CX1988, etc) on an Intel motherboard with a pick Apple sticker on it? I know for a fact that on Macbooks, they use an Intel processor and motherboard with EFI instead of good ol BIOS, a Realtek Card, a Broadcom wireless card (Essentially the same thing as a Dell Truemobile 1390 or an Atheros 5424 card), A Yukon Gigabit Ethernet card (88E8053), with standard devices hooked to it (hard drive, etc) via ICH7. This is all built inside of a Quanta laptop casing.

This is what Apple hardware is. Some may still see it as different, but I sure don't since my dell laptop has almost identical specs. And since Apple uses such an open source friendly license (http://www.opensource.apple.com/apsl/) I have easily ported linux and freebsd drivers to work on OS X. I have purchased a retail copy of leopard. I guess I am breaking the law, right? No, just the EULA. Why am I doing this? Simply to bring a good, friendly, stable, unix OS to my own computer. None of this requires pirating software

FYI, we've already completed a way to install OS X on a PC without altering the original Leopard retail Disc. So people can essentially go out, buy a copy of Leopard, and install it on a PC after booting off of a USB device that loads up the kernel extensions for their own PC hardware. All open source, all following APSL.

Also note that this is all homebrew stuff, none is earning any money off of it, and most of it is open source. This is why Psystar isn't really supported at all when it comes to the people who are putting their heart into this project.

It takes a lot of preparation for them to reach this point and file proceedings, consider:

* exec hears about it, if it were Microsoft chairs would be thrown
* passed to the legal team to see if Apple have a case
* legal sign off
* paralegals do the groundwork, scrutinizing the EULA etc.
*...
*...
* case is filed in court?

In the past I've tried bringing legal action for trademark infringement, and the whole process just to get things started can take months and months especially if you're in a large organization with N-layers of forms & approvals required for anything like this.

[Apple has] the exclusive right to distribute [their] OS. As they should... Now some small fry entrepreneur is... selling PCs with OS X loaded on them. Despite the overwhelming legal precedent against them (I don't know of any official retailer that has gotten away with installing pirated versions of Windows on commodity PCs...

You seem to be confusing Psystar's behavior with piracy. They pay for their copies of OS X. Apple doesn't have a discount distribution center for their OS (for obvious reasons), so Psystar pays full retail price for each copy of OS X that they sell, and they use their right-of-first-sale rights to then resell that copy to their customers.

Yesterday Slashdot had a story about how it was judged that loading software in RAM is equivalent to distributing software. Psystar is loading it onto the HDD, so this ruling might be different. Of course, you could argue that Psystar is then distributing the HDD, but as mentioned before, right-of-first-sale gives them this right without the need for a license.

It's been a while, but I really hope for a sane copyright-related ruling this time. I'm not holding my breath.

They have the exclusive right to distribute that OS.... Normally, I'm against harsh "intellectual property" laws, but this is Apple's investment in a huge competitive advantage, and they've earned it.

Psystar buys legal copies OS X to ship with its units.

Apple tolerates a few hackers jumping through hoops to get it running on commodity PCs, as long as that means they lose maybe 0.1% of their potential customers.

Actually, they are losing far more than that. I won't buy a Mac because they won't make one with the specs and form factor I want. I'm interested in an 'imac tower', and a 12" macbook with a decent video card, gps, and a cellular data option. (I'd gladly give up the internal cdrom for an express card slot. I'd also be interested in a tablet-mac... and the axiotron is pretty sweet, but it would be even better if using the stylus was optional, the price wasn't so high, and the little hiccups like auto-rotating the screen based on orientation were worked out.

My other big wish list for OSX is virtualization. I'd pay $350-400 (up two twice the retail price for OSX) for a copy that I could legally run in VMWare on non-apple hardware.(Yes I know leopard server allows for virtualization, but only on apple hardware [which I don't like], and it costs $500.)

Despite the overwhelming legal precedent against them (I don't know of any official retailer that has gotten away with installing pirated versions of Windows on commodity PCs), they figure it's worth the risk.

What legal precendent. No one has -ever- done anything like this before. Pirated copies of windows are not remotely in the same category as legally purchased copies of os x.

If they argue that they paid for every shrink-wrapped copy of OS X, then they stand a moderately better chance of succeeding.

There's no "if" about it.

The -only- question is whether or not the eula that requires the os be run on apple brand hardware will stick or not.

And its a VERY complicated question.

On apple's side:

They have the EULA in place that clearly forbids it. That sure beats trying to deal with this on pure copyright.

They have a dubious legal precedent in the blizzard case that suggests that violating an eula makes an in computer, or even in RAM copy an unauthorized copy.

They also have the DMCA which can come into play with its protection of 'technical measures'. After all, Apple, doesn't just have the EULA, the code actually tries to check the hardware, and the psystar people have to defeat it to install OSX. This itself may be illegal.

On Psystar's side:

we have first sale doctrine - they bought OSX. They can do what they want with it, including resell it. There was an ebay related case against the makers of autocad I think over this... someone was selling used copies of autocad, and the courts ruled this was legal under first sale, despite autocad's protestation that it was against the EULA. (This is also potentially a counter precedent to the blizzard one too... as it ruled the first sale doctrine rights couldn't be stripped by the shrink wrapped EULA.)

We also have an exception in the DMCA that provides for deafeating copyright measures for interoperability. Clearly Psystar could argue that they only modified OSX to make it interoperate with the non-apple hardware. There is a printer related precedent that might come into play, where some printer manufacturer tried to prevent a competitor from releasing replacement ink via a DMCA lawsuit, and lost, because the competitor had reverse engineered the printer software to figure out how to get their cartridges to 'interoperate' with the printer. This is particularly salient because it shows the DMCA interoperation clause being successfully used in a case where the OEM specifically sought to prevent interoperation... indeed the entire point of the drm was to lock out competition. -- And they lost.

There were legal mac clones at one point in time. When Jobs came back onboard, they released a new version of the OS whose license specified that you couldn't run it on unauthorized hardware (and to be authorized, the clone makers had a very high royalty to pay). The companies who went out of business due to that had just as much at stake as psystar. They didn't win then, and psystar isn't going to win now.